reasons were given for criticizing him, but they almost
always also stated or implied that he was "unfair:' The
word or idea: "unfair" was the axis around which the
criticism revolved.
Frankly, the vehemence of the first few radio-
telephone calls rather surprised me. I had listened care-
fully ~o the debate, which was conducted with courtesy
and decorum. Although they belonged to different political
parties, there actually was little difference in the real politi-
cal philosophies of either candidate. But, later, as the
telephone criticisms continued to be broadcast, and as
more and more members of even his party expressed
their outrage at the "unfairness" of the one candidate's con-
duct of the debate, I sat back to absorb a refresher course
in the emotional power of the word: "unfair".
Few words in our language are so packed with
emotional power. The accusation: "illegar gives rise to
judicial weighing of legal concepts and possible legal con-
sequences. The accusation "untrue" also causes thoughtful,
though sometimes resentful, consideration of the facts.
But the word: "unfair" rubs a raw, emotional nerve. It
builds sympathy for anyone supposedly treated "unfairly"
and, at the same time, provokes often unwarranted hostility
toward whoever is alleged to indulge in such unjust treat-
ment of another.
People will accept with some tolerance many
impositions which would seem to be more offensive, but
when "unfairness" is accused, rational judgment is aban-
doned and hostile emotion takes over. Instantly there is the